One thing that needs to happen to make tanks less vulnerable and more ptfo

Comments

I will add that the BFV tank playstyle does not sit well for those of us who do not enjoy the playstyle of a stationary sniper and preferred the more active and agile tanking of previous tittles.

Ah so that is what you were talking about. That change was so insignificant that it might had as well not existed. I wish I could tell them to shove their "physical feeling of turrets" where the sun does not shine and address the not at all physical movement of infantry strafing

I think it would help a whole lot if the tanks had internal top-gunner - just like the Sturm-something-something tank hunter. In BF4 you seldom saw a tank wihout a man controlling the top machinegun and could cover all angles - made it so much harder for infantry to get close and I personally think that would make the tank play much more agile again.

I will add that the BFV tank playstyle does not sit well for those of us who do not enjoy the playstyle of a stationary sniper and preferred the more active and agile tanking of previous tittles.

Ah so that is what you were talking about. That change was so insignificant that it might had as well not existed. I wish I could tell them to shove their "physical feeling of turrets" where the sun does not shine and address the not at all physical movement of infantry strafing

I think it would help a whole lot if the tanks had internal top-gunner - just like the Sturm-something-something tank hunter. In BF4 you seldom saw a tank wihout a man controlling the top machinegun and could cover all angles - made it so much harder for infantry to get close and I personally think that would make the tank play much more agile again.

This was the reason I was also excited about the STUG tank until I realized that its cannon was the same as the one for the panzer IV unlike how the Archer valentine sports like a 16 pounder cannon

(Quote)
This was the reason I was also excited about the STUG tank until I realized that its cannon was the same as the one for the panzer IV unlike how the Archer valentine sports like a 16 pounder cannon

Yeh I was excited for it too. I swear the panzer IV has a better cannon tho? I haven’t used the stug since it came out but back then I stopped using it at lvl2 because the cannon was abysmal and the ToW that week has all on panzerstorm so the stug got wrecked

(Quote)
This was the reason I was also excited about the STUG tank until I realized that its cannon was the same as the one for the panzer IV unlike how the Archer valentine sports like a 16 pounder cannon

Yeh I was excited for it too. I swear the panzer IV has a better cannon tho? I haven’t used the stug since it came out but back then I stopped using it at lvl2 because the cannon was abysmal and the ToW that week has all on panzerstorm so the stug got wrecked

you can refer to the vehicle stats in my signature for comparing cannons.

They have the exactly same cannons. The stug is a panzer IV minus a turning turret and plus a safe passenger top gun

(Quote)
This was the reason I was also excited about the STUG tank until I realized that its cannon was the same as the one for the panzer IV unlike how the Archer valentine sports like a 16 pounder cannon

Yeh I was excited for it too. I swear the panzer IV has a better cannon tho? I haven’t used the stug since it came out but back then I stopped using it at lvl2 because the cannon was abysmal and the ToW that week has all on panzerstorm so the stug got wrecked

you can refer to the vehicle stats in my signature for comparing cannons.

They have the exactly same cannons. The stug is a panzer IV minus a turning turret and plus a safe passenger top gun

There is a slight difference in the guns though, the StuG has loads more recoil and the lower positioning means you can't shoot over cover (or allies).So even though they have the same guns, the StuG's guns are actually worse.

You'd think it would be fairly straight forward to have someone have a look at the obvious issue of really bad resupply point placements?

It should be shouldn’t it.
They stopped listening months ago and an ex-Dice employee said himself that the higher ups just don’t listen to feedback or suggestions. Hopefully that’ll change

Tbh I just don’t know how tf the creative leads got their jobs. It’s just astonishing

The maps really have been the worst part of BFV. They're bland, they have terrible visibility issues, the layouts are thoughtless, the resources are sprinkled randomly and unevenly (and sometimes even out of bounds somehow), they're full of terrain glitches, and they're slow to arrive. And it's only been getting worse. Marita is a visual mess. Al Soondone has become a meme. The TDM redesigns were disastrous. Lofoten and Provence are boring, tiny, and apparently unplayable for the modes that matter to most players.

I don't like dumping on this game. I want it to be good. But holy smokes, it's hard to look at 2019's track record so far and expect things to suddenly get better with Underground and the Pacific maps.

You'd think it would be fairly straight forward to have someone have a look at the obvious issue of really bad resupply point placements?

It should be shouldn’t it.
They stopped listening months ago and an ex-Dice employee said himself that the higher ups just don’t listen to feedback or suggestions. Hopefully that’ll change

Tbh I just don’t know how tf the creative leads got their jobs. It’s just astonishing

The maps really have been the worst part of BFV. They're bland, they have terrible visibility issues, the layouts are thoughtless, the resources are sprinkled randomly and unevenly (and sometimes even out of bounds somehow), they're full of terrain glitches, and they're slow to arrive. And it's only been getting worse. Marita is a visual mess. Al Soondone has become a meme. The TDM redesigns were disastrous. Lofoten and Provence are boring, tiny, and apparently unplayable for the modes that matter to most players.

I don't like dumping on this game. I want it to be good. But holy smokes, it's hard to look at 2019's track record so far and expect things to suddenly get better with Underground and the Pacific maps.

That is exactly how almost everyone here feels.

For me the worst designed map is Aerodrome. The first reason is that its layout encourages the worst type of tank sniping gameplay, the second reason is how it is almost impossible for the defenders to win because the starting tanks of the attackers are about 5 and they can pound the defenders almost from out of bounds thanks to the map layout, also the defenders have no tank depot on the last sector...

(Quote)
The maps really have been the worst part of BFV. They're bland, they have terrible visibility issues, the layouts are thoughtless, the resources are sprinkled randomly and unevenly (and sometimes even out of bounds somehow), they're full of terrain glitches, and they're slow to arrive. And it's only been getting worse. Marita is a visual mess. Al Soondone has become a meme. The TDM redesigns were disastrous. Lofoten and Provence are boring, tiny, and apparently unplayable for the modes that matter to most players.

I don't like dumping on this game. I want it to be good. But holy smokes, it's hard to look at 2019's track record so far and expect things to suddenly get better with Underground and the Pacific maps.

I fully agree. BF4 had very similar TTKs to BFV and yet camping wasn’t nearly as bad. The difference between the two are the maps. Everything you said is true and I just don’t get why Dice have a fetish for maps that encourage camping (and for gas masks lol). Well, actually I know that part of the reason is that some of them do it themselves

The Pacific should be the perfect opportunity for changing the map design meta to have more cover and be less camper friendly and hopefully the meta will change. But then again if the devs really do have a soft spot for campers they’ll find ways to make the maps a camper’s paradise.
Not sure what will happen will the new metro but they’ll probably either chuck the players who ptfo a bone and make it not camper friendly or they’ll wreck metro’s legacy

Playing as the Tiger, which I've seen many players here disparage. 28 kills and countless other woundings and suppressions over a 10:30 stretch. No camp-sniping, all fighting in objectives or traveling between them. Disabled multiple times. And the streak only ended because we won the match.

I watched for 3 minutes, you barely moved, you scoped out most of your kills from distance.

The saddest part is being tethered to the depot (as he was on D). And its got nothing to do with skill.

@trip1ex That's just my playstyle. I think faster tankplay is still viable in the Stag and 38t, it's just not something I'm great at. But fair enough, I'll take that particular burden of proof on myself and see if I can actually do it before I make that claim. Regardless, this is still effective PTFO tanking with a big streak. I'm in a heavy tank, so I figure my role is built around holding the center of the map and drawing attention more than racing around It's probably less thrilling to watch than it was to play, but I enjoyed it, and it's still far more arcade than sim in my opinion. And I won't tell you how to spend your time, but three minutes doesn't really tell the story.

@DukeSan27 It wasn't all that bad. Like I said, I mismanaged my ammo and took a lot of cannon shots at targets I should have been using the MG, and while the resupply points are nice for lazy repair cycles, I always had the option to hop out and touch up my tank myself. It's less that I was tethered to the resupply and more that it was in a really good position for me. (FWIW, I do think they need more resupply points in the middle of most maps, because I agree Ammo Concern Syndrome can be a factor for a lot of players that pushes them into campy gameplay.) As for manual skill, that's still a factor, as I used mine to get more kills than most could but fewer than a great tanker could have. But for me it's really more about positioning and situational awareness than pure hand-eye coordination mastery.

I do see your points better now, though. At best, BFV's tanking isn't for everyone. My main disagreement is with the folks who pretend tanks are too weak to do anything significant in terms of winning the match. How fun their implementation is is certainly subjective.

(Quote)
This was the reason I was also excited about the STUG tank until I realized that its cannon was the same as the one for the panzer IV unlike how the Archer valentine sports like a 16 pounder cannon

Yeh I was excited for it too. I swear the panzer IV has a better cannon tho? I haven’t used the stug since it came out but back then I stopped using it at lvl2 because the cannon was abysmal and the ToW that week has all on panzerstorm so the stug got wrecked

you can refer to the vehicle stats in my signature for comparing cannons.

They have the exactly same cannons. The stug is a panzer IV minus a turning turret and plus a safe passenger top gun

There is a slight difference in the guns though, the StuG has loads more recoil and the lower positioning means you can't shoot over cover (or allies).So even though they have the same guns, the StuG's guns are actually worse.

That is the point actually. Archer got better main cannon to compensate for lack of turret. Stug got nothing. Looks like the vehicle designer just forgot or was too lazy to add a new German main cannon.

That is exactly how almost everyone here feels.
For me the worst designed map is Aerodrome. The first reason is that its layout encourages the worst type of tank sniping gameplay, the second reason is how it is almost impossible for the defenders to win because the starting tanks of the attackers are about 5 and they can pound the defenders almost from out of bounds thanks to the map layout, also the defenders have no tank depot on the last sector...

They do but it's aaaaaalllllllll the way back at base. Mind you that last sector is basically a gimme for the attackers.

That is exactly how almost everyone here feels.
For me the worst designed map is Aerodrome. The first reason is that its layout encourages the worst type of tank sniping gameplay, the second reason is how it is almost impossible for the defenders to win because the starting tanks of the attackers are about 5 and they can pound the defenders almost from out of bounds thanks to the map layout, also the defenders have no tank depot on the last sector...

They do but it's aaaaaalllllllll the way back at base. Mind you that last sector is basically a gimme for the attackers.

Yeh aerodrome would be a lot more interesting if the defenders got like two planes. I mean come on, they’re defending an airstrip...

That is exactly how almost everyone here feels.
For me the worst designed map is Aerodrome. The first reason is that its layout encourages the worst type of tank sniping gameplay, the second reason is how it is almost impossible for the defenders to win because the starting tanks of the attackers are about 5 and they can pound the defenders almost from out of bounds thanks to the map layout, also the defenders have no tank depot on the last sector...

They do but it's aaaaaalllllllll the way back at base. Mind you that last sector is basically a gimme for the attackers.

the attackers can just dump artillery or the JB whatever rocket and claim the base

(Quote)
the attackers can just dump artillery or the JB whatever rocket and claim the base

Maybe but since it's all the way right at the back there isn't much point - better to hit the hanger. Even if they moved it close it'd still be a terrible sector to defend though.

That last sector usually falls within 2 minutes. Most of the sectors with just one objective fall really easily. Off the top of my head the first sector on marita’s the only outlier

It sure does. I've only really won there as defenders if the attackers have got low tickets. The single flag sector on Hamada seems a bit better and Marita is soul destroying if you're on a team that doesn't rush that first sector.

I wonder if the last sector on Aerodrome would be better if they added another flag, or changed it so the sector before is a single flag and make the radar dish part of the last one?

Yep, it will lose in a toe-to-toe with most tanks, you don't have a turret, poor traverse on the weak main gun, and no alternate coaxial machine gun for the driver. All of that is bad, but it is fast, and that protected 360 machine gun fills coffins with a good gunner and headset communication between crew members (a torch helps with the toe--to-toe encounters, which also requires coordinated teamwork).

Yep, it will lose in a toe-to-toe with most tanks, you don't have a turret, poor traverse on the weak main gun, and no alternate coaxial machine gun for the driver. All of that is bad, but it is fast, and that protected 360 machine gun fills coffins with a good gunner and headset communication between crew members (a torch helps with the toe--to-toe encounters, which also requires coordinated teamwork).

I can't stand the weird graphical glitch with the vertical object blocking the middle of the gunsight.

(Quote)
the attackers can just dump artillery or the JB whatever rocket and claim the base

Maybe but since it's all the way right at the back there isn't much point - better to hit the hanger. Even if they moved it close it'd still be a terrible sector to defend though.

That last sector usually falls within 2 minutes. Most of the sectors with just one objective fall really easily. Off the top of my head the first sector on marita’s the only outlier

It sure does. I've only really won there as defenders if the attackers have got low tickets. The single flag sector on Hamada seems a bit better and Marita is soul destroying if you're on a team that doesn't rush that first sector.

I wonder if the last sector on Aerodrome would be better if they added another flag, or changed it so the sector before is a single flag and make the radar dish part of the last one?

That would help a bit but if they did that then the second last sector would fall really quickly and easily. The barracks would also be an absolute bloodbath haha.

I think that if they’re going to have single objective sectors then those sectors need to be particularly well defended. Like either the terrain or the fortifications need to give the defenders an advantage.
One problem is that the stationary MGs are currently next to useless tbh. They’re a little better than the top gunner position in tanks because at least they have a shield but as soon as a gunner gets flanked they’re dead. The ones in the last sector of Arras are good examples and no-one uses them for a reason. The MGs don’t even have particularly good dps or accuracy and so in a 1vs1 SAR and snipers should win 90%+ of the time